The Court reviews the Special Master's order de nova as to factual findings and legal conclusions, and for abuse of discretion as to procedural matters.

A document will be granted protection from disclosure if the court finds that the "primary" purpose behind its creation was to aid in possible future litigation.

I accordingly overrule Plaintiffs objection to the Special Master's Order on the ground that the communications are non-discoverable attorney work product.

Furthermore, the Special Master explained that the "documents were provided before any agreement was reached between Plaintiff and Hamilton Capital, and before any litigation was filed."

Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the communications are "irrelevant to the limited scope of discovery permitted by the Court" in a past Order.

INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K

WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation with trial dates for C.A.

No. 16-455 (RGA (the "Take-Two Action) as well as certain due dates concerning the conclusion of expert discovery in the Take-Two Action; and WHEREAS, the parties conferred regarding scheduling in these actions; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court that the trials and pre-trial conferences shall be scheduled as follows: • Pre-Trial Conference (EA Action) - February 22, 2019 @ \Q".OO A-r" • Trial (EA Action) - March 4, 2019 @ q:~ NV\ • Pre-Trial Conference (Take-Two Action) -April 26, 2019-(ifthe trial starts Ma)' 6, 2019) or May 3, 2019 (if the trial starts May 13, 2019) @ oi·,oo NY' • Trial (Take-Two Action) - May 6, 2019 or Ma:y 13, 2019 (ifthe Court is unavailable on May 6, 2019); and @ C\~-WA-1"'- The parties shall simultaneously file letters explaining their respective competing positions concerning pre-trial deadlines and briefing issues in the Take-Two Action by June 22, 2018: Event Reply Expert Reports (Take Two Action Close of expert discovery (Take-Two Action Opening summary judgment and Daubert motions (Take Two Action Oppositions to summary judgment and Daubert motions Take-Two Action Reply briefs in support of summary judgment and Daubert motions.

The Court should deny Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a second supplemental summary judgment brief (D.I.

Activision also did not move for reargument when the Court denied its first motion for leave to file further summary judgment briefing on the m-regular and participant limitations in this case.

In the Take-Two Order, the Court concluded that Grand Theft Auto V Online’s proximity rules and NBA 2K’s park relay server are not infringing networks.

 Call of Duty infringes through the use of a peer-to-peer connectivity graph relay network for distributing quality of service messages and voice data (VoIP).

2 Activision did move for clarification of two unrelated claim terms, demonstrating its willingness to avail itself of this procedure when it thought it had good reason to do so.

The Court, having considered the parties' briefing on claim construction (D.I.

366) 1, and in accordance with the reasoning set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion (D.I.

'634119, "each of the broadcast channels" "computers that are equally able to send and receive information" Preamble is limiting.

"peers" "A non-routing table based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network" "A computer-based, non-routing table based, non-switch based method for adding a participant to a network of participants" "A method of disconnecting a first computer from a second computer, the first computer and the second computer being connected to a broadcast channel, said broadcast channel forming an m-regular graph No.

"a hardware component programmed to locate a call-in port of a portal computer" "port ordering algorithm" '497/9, 16 "rule-based procedure for generating an order of portal computer ports in a non-random manner" Furthermore, Term 18 is modified as follows: No.

Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.

r Accordingly, in light of the intrinsic evidence, it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that "network" refers to a "broadcast channel."

Term 24: "A non-routing table based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network" ('634/19) a. Plaintiff's proposed construction: Not indefinite and covers patent eligible subject matter.

Accordingly, given that the parties agree that "non-routing table based computer-readable medium" is "nonsensical," claim 19 of the '634 patent "fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."

Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs "continued ... advance[ ment o:fJ new interpretations of 'routing table's' meaning in the IPRs to distinguish other prior art" renders term 25 indefinite.